Will we lose another shuttle?

[docm]

9 flights left before the shuttle is retired in 2010.<br /><br />Quote from outgoing NASA administrator Mike Griffin last week when discussing proposals to extend shuttle flights until Orion is near ready in 2015:<br /><br /><div style="margin:5px20px20px"><div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1pxinset">We at NASA have recently updated our estimates of the cost to do it, and the bottom line is this: for $3 billion per year, <strong>we could continue to fly the Shuttle twice a year from 2011-15 for ISS crew transfer and cargo logistics, <font color="#8b0000">with about a one-in-eight chance of losing another crew on one of those ten flights.</font></strong>

 

[trailrider]

<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div><p><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border-width:1px">We at NASA have recently updated our estimates of the cost to do it, and the bottom line is this: for $3 billion per year, <strong>we could continue to fly the Shuttle twice a year from 2011-15 for ISS crew transfer and cargo logistics, <font color="#8b0000">with about a one-in-eight chance of losing another crew on one of those ten flights.</font></strong>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>9 flights left before the shuttle is retired in 2010.Quote from outgoing NASA administrator Mike Griffin last week when discussing proposals to extend shuttle flights until Orion is near ready in 2015:Quote:We at NASA have recently updated our estimates of the cost to do it, and the bottom line is this: for $3 billion per year, we could continue to fly the Shuttle twice a year from 2011-15 for ISS crew transfer and cargo logistics, with about a one-in-eight chance of losing another crew on one of those ten flights. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>Another way to look at it is this: will we lose another shuttle?&nbsp; Maybe, but probably not.&nbsp; The odds look bad, but do still favor survival.&nbsp; That's no reason to be complacent; 1 in 8 would be utterly unacceptable in many circumstances.&nbsp; Would you eat at McDonald's if there was a 1 in 8 chance of contracting a fatal case of food poisoning?&nbsp; Absolutely not.</p><p>In this case, 1 in 8 is the risk we have to accept if we want to put humans into space aboard American hardware in the given timeframe.&nbsp; If we as a nation decide to press forward, then we need to do whatever can be done to make sure that the actual missions flown don't end up being the 1 in 8.&nbsp; Most of the expense of a Shuttle mission is basically risk mitigation -- extensive testing, very methodical and careful processing, etc.&nbsp; Not everything can be prevented, but you do the best you can to avoid becoming that statistic. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Quote:We at NASA have recently updated our estimates of the cost to do it, and the bottom line is this: for $3 billion per year, we could continue to fly the Shuttle twice a year from 2011-15 for ISS crew transfer and cargo logistics, with about a one-in-eight chance of losing another crew on one of those ten flights. When one does risk assessments/analysis, you take into account various factors on individual systems & components, plus the past history of the program.&nbsp; You can then boil the statistics down to a percentage figure and then make a statement like this.&nbsp; The problem with this sort of calculation is that it (1) doesn't take into account the unpredictable, and (2) it is still just a theoretical number.&nbsp; During WWII, 8th Air Force crews had so many missions to fly (initially 25, later, more).&nbsp; Crews that came close to completing their 25 missions would figure their chances of being shot down based on the number of missions completed safely, etc.&nbsp; In some instances, a crew would be lost (killed or captured) on their last mission.&nbsp; This got people more fearful as they approached the end of their tour.&nbsp; The problem with this line of thinking was that the odds of being shot down were essentially the SAME for EACH mission, except for changes in risk factors, such as the ability of the Luftwaffe to send up more or fewer fighters, the concentration of AAA around the target, and the distance to be flown (increasing or decreasing the possibility of mechanical failures).Recently, a Boeing 737 encountered a problem on takeoff from Denver International Airport (DIA).&nbsp; Something caused it not to have sufficient speed at the decision point down the runway.&nbsp; The captain attempt to abort the takeoff, the plane veered to the left, ran off the runway, skidded to a stop and caught fire.&nbsp; Fortunately, the Souls On Board escaped, with some injuries.&nbsp; The cause is UNDETERMAINED at this time!&nbsp; Yet, not a single 737 has been grounded pending NTSB coming up with a "probable cause".&nbsp; TWA Flight 800, a B747,&nbsp;exploded and fell into the Atlantic killing over 230 aboard.&nbsp; Not only was not a single B747 grounded until the cause was found (there is still debate over the probable cause, but it is generally, and officially thought to be ignition of fuel vapors in the empty centerline fuel tank, ignited by frayed wiring.). More than a decade later, NOT all B747's have had a fuel tank inerting system installed. Yet they are still being flown!God forbid, we could lose the next flight, or NONE!&nbsp; The point is, that about all you can do is assess the risk, figure out if it is worth it, and PRESS ON!&nbsp; Even if an extension of the Shuttle program is authorized and funded, we could have any mission simply blow a tire on landing, run off the side of the runway, damage the orbiter but NOT the crew, and have a panicy Congress or the President, etc., cancel the remainder of the program, even if it was not justified.The Shuttle program IS a risky one, and it would be nice if there were less risky, but AS-CAPABLE alternatives, but there aren't!&nbsp; We have backed ourselves into somewhat of a corner with Shuttle and Constellation.&nbsp; It could probably have been avoided in a number of ways, but that is past history.&nbsp; IMHO whether Shuttle is extended or not is going to depend more on the decisions made after January 20, 2009, and I believe it will hinge as much on funding as on risk assessment.Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra! <br />Posted by trailrider</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Forget the big plans...Obama has changed his mind again...apparently to give the NASA funds to education.</p><p>From NASAwatch:</p><p><em>"During the question-and-answer portion of an event at a recreational center here, Obama was asked about the nation's space program. "I grew up on Star Trek," Obama said. "I believe in the final frontier." But Obama said he does not agree with the way the space program is now being run and thinks funding should be trimmed until the mission is clearer. "NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration," he said. "I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn't even pass for news anymore."</em></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Testing]

<p>

&nbsp;Forget the big plans...Obama has changed his mind again...apparently to give the NASA funds to education.</p><p>If the mission funding didn't change year by year and the plan didn't change at the whim of each administration perhaps NASA could get some where. The Planning, time and work involved with ANY space mission does not work well that way. I believe a base on the Moon would be a bit more usefull than a manned mission to Mars.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>*shakes head sadly*</p><p>Well said, Testing.&nbsp; That is precisely the problem.&nbsp; NASA has received so many conflicting "do this" orders from the top in the past twenty years that it's a wonder they've managed to do as well as they can.&nbsp; And constantly changing the boss isn't really helpful either.</p><p>"In the past two years, you've failed to complete the ten-year plan you were given a year ago.&nbsp; So I'm yanking your funding until you figure out how to complete the plan that you no longer have money to do, but are still obligated to do."</p><p>Heck, if he wants to save money for education (which already gets way more funds than NASA, so a little trim to NASA isn't really going to make much difference), why doesn't he look a little closer at the military?&nbsp; Yeah, the DoD ultimately funds my paycheck, but as a taxpayer, I have to think they could cut costs a lot. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>*shakes head sadly*Well said, Testing.&nbsp; That is precisely the problem.&nbsp; NASA has received so many conflicting "do this" orders from the top in the past twenty years that it's a wonder they've managed to do as well as they can.&nbsp; And constantly changing the boss isn't really helpful either."In the past two years, you've failed to complete the ten-year plan you were given a year ago.&nbsp; So I'm yanking your funding until you figure out how to complete the plan that you no longer have money to do, but are still obligated to do."Heck, if he wants to save money for education (which already gets way more funds than NASA, so a little trim to NASA isn't really going to make much difference), why doesn't he look a little closer at the military?&nbsp; Yeah, the DoD ultimately funds my paycheck, but as a taxpayer, I have to think they could cut costs a lot. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />my guess is that there will be no real funding cut. he keeps changing his position on this and I suspect he will take whatever congress gives him. and the current congress has not&nbsp;seen a spending bill that they dont like.</p><p>if you are talking about running trillion dollar deficits 16 billion is nothing.</p><p>plus just throwing money at education is not going to do anything.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newsartist]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> ...he keeps changing his position on this....</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;That has been&nbsp;Obama's stated policy dating back to before he got a single primary vote.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>9 flights left before the shuttle is retired in 2010.Quote from outgoing NASA administrator Mike Griffin last week when discussing proposals to extend shuttle flights until Orion is near ready in 2015:Quote:We at NASA have recently updated our estimates of the cost to do it, and the bottom line is this: for $3 billion per year, we could continue to fly the Shuttle twice a year from 2011-15 for ISS crew transfer and cargo logistics, with about a one-in-eight chance of losing another crew on one of those ten flights. <br />Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">In an op-ed piece written for FLORIDA TODAY this week, former astronaut and USA chief Dick Covey says that the idea that flying the shuttle longer is "rolling the dice" and "too risky" is wrongheaded. Here's his take on whether it's safe to fly the shuttle past the existing 2010 deadline. Read it and let us know what you think.</span><span style="font-family:Arial"></span><span style="font-family:Arial"><font size="3">&nbsp;</font></span><span style="font-family:Arial"><font size="3">&ldquo;PRA estimates alone should never be used to reach a go/no-go determination on flying one, two or 10 more missions. PRA is intended primarily to provide an analytical yardstick for making sound engineering decisions about the development of a system and whether incremental changes in a system would improve or degrade relative safety.<br /><br />Applying statistical probability techniques to the space shuttle PRA number to determine the risk of flying multiple missions implies a randomness in safe shuttle operations that does not exist, and belies the real approach to risk identification and management that defines the current space shuttle program.<br /><br />The shuttle currently operates at the highest level of safety in its history. It is not without risk, but that risk is better understood and mitigated now than at any time in shuttle history.&rdquo;</font></span><span style="font-family:Arial"><font size="3">&nbsp;</font></span> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font size="3">More at:</font></span></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font> <p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990113048</font></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobble_bob]

There are a million and 1 things that could go wrong on any launch or landing that would result in us losing a shuttle. Its hard to really put that in figures and say we have this percentage chance of losing one. We could lose STS119 if 1 small thing goes wrong, out of the millions things that have to go right for it to successfully launch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;That has been&nbsp;Obama's stated policy dating back to before he got a single primary vote. <br />Posted by newsartist</DIV><br /><br />he stated otherwise during the general election.</p><p>not that a politician lying would be suprising or anything....</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are a million and 1 things that could go wrong on any launch or landing that would result in us losing a shuttle. Its hard to really put that in figures and say we have this percentage chance of losing one. We could lose STS119 if 1 small thing goes wrong, out of the millions things that have to go right for it to successfully launch. <br />Posted by bobble_bob</DIV><br /><br />I defer to Wayne Hales blog comments on the subject. About a year ago, he said i's too late to change the shutdown plan. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I defer to Wayne Hales blog comments on the subject. About a year ago, he said i's too late to change the shutdown plan. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />One of Wayne's recent blog entries; an e-mail to the Shuttle team about 5 years ago.</p><p>While not really relevant to extending the Shuttle lifetime (I'll get that link later) it's a fine read.</p><p>http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/posts/post_1231872667823.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One of Wayne's recent blog entries; an e-mail to the Shuutle team about 5 years ago.While not really relevant to extending the Shuttle lifetime (I'll get that link later) it's a fine read.http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/posts/post_1231872667823.html <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Now to the point, here's what Wayne Hale wrote about shutting down the shuttle. I have no higher respect for anyone else in the public eye in NASA. I hope he will not mind that I copied it. A link is attached at the end. It was written only last August so is still quite relevant at this time.</p><dt>""Shutting down the shuttle <div class="align_right"><span class="listdate_blog">Posted on Aug 28, 2008 10:15:05 AM | </span><span class="listdate_blog_user">Wayne Hale</span> </div></dt><dd class="summary"><p>I believe it was General Norman Schwartzkopf who said:&nbsp; "Arm chair generals study tactics; real generals study logistics".&nbsp; </p><p>One of the first lessons I learned in program and project management is that&nbsp;attention to the details of supplies, vendors, and parts manufacturers will determine success or failure more than anything else that management does.&nbsp; They are not glamorous, Hollywood does not make&nbsp;movies made about them, but logistics and supply chain are the unsung pillars on which every major project rests. </p><p>It is nice to have eloquent oratory and high flown philosophical statements, but the real way that real programs are really controlled is through the money.&nbsp; When the logistics and supply budget is stopped, the program is over.&nbsp; Momentum and warehoused supplies can carry on for a short period, but when those are exhausted, its time for the museum. </p><p>Starting four years ago, the shuttle program in its various projects made "lifetime buys".&nbsp; That is, we bought enough piece parts to fly all the flights on the manifest plus a prudent margin of reserves.&nbsp; Then we started sending out termination letters.&nbsp; About two years ago, we terminated 95% of the vendors for parts for the external tank project, for example.&nbsp; Smaller, but still significant, percentages of vendors for SSME, Orbiter, and RSRB have also been terminated. </p><p>A lot of things that go into the shuttle build up are specialty items.&nbsp; Electronics parts that nobody makes any more (1970's vintage stuff).&nbsp; Hey, if it works, why invest money in certifying new parts?&nbsp; Certifying new ones would be even more costly!&nbsp; Specialty alloys to meet the extraordinary demands of space flight, parts that are made by Mom and Pop shops mostly in the LA basin are norm rather than the exception.&nbsp; You might think that simple things like bolts and screws, wire, filters, and gaskets could be bought off the shelf some where, but that thinking would merely prove how little you know about the shuttle.&nbsp; The huge majority of supplies, consumable items, maintenance items, they are all specially made with unique and stringent processes and standards.&nbsp; </p><p>Our shuttle history tells us that when we try to cut corners, trouble results.&nbsp; Small, even apparently insignificant changes have caused big problems.&nbsp; For example, the unheralded end of production of a&nbsp;solvent caused enormous complications for the SRB folks a few years back&nbsp;when things started falling apart unexpectedly.&nbsp; It took a huge engineering detective effort to determine that small chemical changes in the new solvent were the culprit.&nbsp; Anything coming apart in the SRB is not good.&nbsp; There are hundreds of similar examples. </p><p>There is a long and arduous process to certify a vendor to produce the&nbsp;logistical parts for the shuttle.&nbsp; Not many companies do this work.&nbsp; Almost all of them are extraordinarily proud of the role they play in America's space program.&nbsp; A lot of them have been there from the beginnings in the middle 1970s.&nbsp; So when a Mom and Pop specialty shop gets a termination letter from the shuttle program after 35 years of production and they have&nbsp;other customers, guess what happens?&nbsp; Mom and Pop decide to close the shop, pension off their highly skilled workers, and then&nbsp;Mom and Pop move out of LA to their retirement cottage in the mountains or at the sea shore. </p><p>A lot of this has been happening over the last four years; most of it over two years ago. </p><p>So, just for the sake of argument, lets see what would happen if somehow we decided to fly the shuttle some more flights? </p><p>From time to time a vendor of specialty parts for the shuttle has gone out of business.&nbsp; Our experience then is that&nbsp;we have&nbsp;immense problems getting anybody to even bid on making replacement items.&nbsp; Sometimes, with&nbsp;hat in hand, we have to knock on doors.&nbsp; Always, we have to offer premium payments to get those exotic, small production run parts made. </p><p>Given time and money, anything is possible.&nbsp; But we are always short on time and money.&nbsp; Life seems to be like that.&nbsp; </p><p>To take one little example:&nbsp; if we started today to build another external tank at MAF, there are probably enough parts on the shelf.&nbsp; But very shortly we would exhaust supplies of some parts.&nbsp; Maybe on the second tank -- which we need to start in 3&nbsp; months or so --&nbsp;would have to get a new supply of specialty parts.&nbsp; Sometimes the old vendor is still there and could be persuaded to make more of the old parts.&nbsp; But in many cases, a new vendor would have to be found.&nbsp;&nbsp;Since the production run would be small,&nbsp;a premium price would have to be paid; and a certification effort requiring&nbsp;6 to 12 months would start.&nbsp; Initial production likely would have a number of rejects as the workers learn the process.&nbsp; Hmm.&nbsp; In probably 15 to 18 months would would have the parts to build that second tank -- only a year or so later than we needed them.&nbsp; So a new gap would form.&nbsp; Not between shuttle and orion but between shuttle and shuttle. </p><p>And what would we get:&nbsp; even higher price per flight of an old technology which is not nearly as safe as we would like . . . </p><p>Hey, I am the biggest shuttle hugger there is.&nbsp; I think it is the best spacecraft ever built.&nbsp; But I also deal in the real world. </p><p>Where does the money come from?&nbsp; Where do the people -- who should be working on the moon rocket -- where do they come from? </p><p>We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago.&nbsp; That horse has left the barn.&nbsp; ""</p></dd><dd class="summary"><p>Anyone who wants to argue with Wayne Hale, better have some real facts at his/her disposal.- The Other Wayne</p></dd><p class="summary">&nbsp;http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/posts/post_1219932905350.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;That has been&nbsp;Obama's stated policy dating back to before he got a single primary vote. <br />Posted by newsartist</DIV></p><p>No, w<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">hen he was here at KSC&nbsp;(not on base but in Titusville) He was singing a different tune. His position changed with the audience</span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I defer to Wayne Hales blog comments on the subject. About a year ago, he said i's too late to change the shutdown plan. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That was&nbsp;really true if there was no increase in funding.. All you need is money to keep the vendors active. The big issue is that the extension would delay the Constellation program and there is no money.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;That was&nbsp;really true if there was no increase in funding.. All you need is money to keep the vendors active. The big issue is that the extension would delay the Constellation program and there is no money. <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br /><br />Pretty much the same thing, dont you think? It's clear that in today's financial environment, the <strong>best</strong> that can be hoped for is promised money; to expect a money fairy to double or triple NASA's budget seems a tad unlikely. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[vulture4]

<p>It is possible that a shuttle could be lost, but the estimate of one loss in 77 flights makes the reliability unrealistically low, just as the pre-Challanger estimate of 1 loss in 100,000 flights gave an estimate of reliability that was unrealistically high. Assuming quality control is maintained, any shuttle loss now would have to be due to a new failure mode which has not become apparent in 123 flights. Ironically the Constellation is given a 1 in 1000 loss-of-crew risk for ISS missions, despite having a similar booster stage and no flight experience at all. This seems unrealistically low; there is a tendency to look on the Launch Abort System as a panacea. Let's remember that we lost one Apollo crew and nearly lost two more, and not one of these incidents would have been helped by the LAS. </p><p>Despite all the complex math, it would be wrong to suggest that the future reliability of launch vehicles can be predicted to anything approaching the precision these numbers suggest., simply because most real contingencies are due to unanticipated failure modes. Historically, the safest launch vehicle is usually the one with the most launches. Currently Soyuz is probably safest, the cause of the recent pyrobolt failure having been identified, followed by Shuttle.&nbsp; </p><p>What&nbsp; MeteorWayne says rings true, maybe it's too late for the Shuttle. But if human access to space is important, than it was not a wise decision to terminate the Shuttle program before a replacement craft was operational.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p>